1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 68, Issue 7
  5. Article
Volume 68, Issue 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Over the last two decades, scientists have introduced many ways to improve normal moveout velocity analysis by optimizing the resolution of the moveout velocity spectrum, a graph that displays a coherence value for every tested velocity traveltime pair. Almost all of these methods have failed to enhance resolution when faced with low‐fold common‐midpoint gathers, which might be caused by natural barriers or man‐made obstacles. Another problem is that many approaches are derived from very simple model assumptions that quickly break down for complex structures and do not provide enough model flexibility for an iterative and interactive velocity analysis. In this paper, we present a new velocity analysis method based on the model‐based common‐diffraction‐surface stack operator and apply it to two synthetic data sets, one with locally sparse common‐midpoint coverage and one with a laterally variable complex geological structure. We generate velocity spectra by calculating the semblance along spatial operators obtained for all possible emergence angles and an entire range of velocity models. Comparing the resolution of such velocity spectra with those obtained with the classical normal moveout velocity analysis shows, in both two analysed cases, that the stacking velocity can be estimated much more precisely. The reasons for this are that the event dip is handled independently from the velocity and that the semblance is obtained, for each zero‐offset sample, over a group of neighbouring common‐midpoint gathers instead of just one.

© 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12969
2020-06-15
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12969
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbad, B. and Ursin, B. (2012) High‐resolution bootstrapped differential semblance. Geophysics, 77(3), 39–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbad, B., Ursin, B. and Rappin, D. (2009) Automatic nonhyperbolic velocity analysis. Geophysics, 74(2), 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Asgedom, E.G., Gelius, L.J. and Tygel, M. (2012) Seismic coherency measures in case of interfering events: A focus on the most promising candidates of higher‐resolution algorithms. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 23(3), 47–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baykulov, M. and Gajewski, D. (2009) Prestack seismic data enhancement with partial common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) stack. Geophysics, 74(3), 49–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bóna, A. (2011) Shot‐gather time migration of planar reflectors without velocity model. Geophysics, 76(2), S93–S101.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Červený, V. (2001) Seismic Ray Theory. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, Y., Liu, T. and Chen, X. (2015) Velocity analysis using similarity weighted semblance. Geophysics, 80(4), 75–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, J.K. and Stockwell, J.J.W. (2000) CWP/SU: Seismic Unix Release 34: a free package for seismic research and processing. Center for Wave Phenomena, Colorado School of Mines.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Duveneck, E. (2004) Velocity model estimation with data‐derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics, 69(1), 265–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Duijndam, A.J.W., Schonewille, M.A. and Hindriks, C.O.H. (1999) Reconstruction of band‐limited signals, irregularly sampled along one spatial direction. Geophysics, 64(2), 524–538.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ebrahimi, S., Roshandel Kahoo, A., Chen, Y. and Porsani, M. (2017) A high‐resolution weighted AB semblance for dealing with amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset phenomenon. Geophysics, 82(2), 85–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fomel, S. (2003) Time‐migration velocity analysis by velocity continuation. Geophysics, 68(5), 1662–1672.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fomel, S. (2007) Velocity‐independent time‐domain seismic imaging using local event slopes. Geophysics, 72(3), 139–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fomel, S. (2009) Velocity analysis using AB semblance. Geophysical Prospecting, 57(3), 311–321.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gong, X., Wang, S. and Zhang, T. (2016) Velocity analysis using high‐resolution semblance based on sparse hyperbolic Radon transform. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 134, 146–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hertweck, T., Schleicher, J. and Mann, J. (2007) Data stacking beyond CMP. The Leading Edge, 26(7), 818–827.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Höcht, G. (1998) Common reflection surface stack. Master thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.
  18. Höcht, G., de Bazelaire, E., Majer, P. and Hubral, P. (1999) Seismics and optics: hyperbolae and curvatures. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 42(3–4), 261–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hubral, P. (1983) Computing true amplitude reflections in a laterally inhomogeneous earth. Geophysics, 48(8), 1051–1062.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jäger, R., Mann, J., Höcht, G. and Hubral, P. (2001) Common‐reflection‐surface stack: Image and attributes. Geophysics, 66(1), 97–109.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Key, S.C., and Smithson, S. B. (1990) New approach to seismic‐reflection event detection and velocity determination. Geophysics, 55(8), 1057–1069.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Key, S.C., Kirlin, L. and Smithson, S. B. (1987) Seismic velocity analysis using maximum‐likelihood weighted eigenvalue ratios. 57th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 461–464.
  23. Larner, K. and Celis, V. (2007) Selective‐correlation velocity analysis. Geophysics, 72(2), 11–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mann, J., Bergler, S. and Hubral, P. (2001) Common‐reflection‐surface stack. In Workshop on velocity model independent imaging for complex media, Extended Abstracts, Session W5‐4, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  25. Mann, J. (2001) Common‐reflection‐surface stack and conflicting dips. EAGE 63rd Conference and Technical Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  26. Mann, J., Jäger, R., Müller, T., Höcht, G. and Hubral, P. (1999) Common‐reflection‐surface stack – a real data example. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 42(3–4), 301–318.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Mayne, W. H. (1962) Common reflection point horizontal data stacking techniques. Geophysics, 27(6), 927–938.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Müller, T. (1999) The common reflection surface stack method – Seismic imaging without explicit knowledge of the velocity model. Der Andere Verlag, Bad Iburg.
  29. Neidell, N.S. and Taner, M.T. (1971) Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics, 36(3), 482–497.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Perroud, H. and Tygel, M. (2005) Velocity estimation by the common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) method using ground‐penetrating radar data. Geophysics, 70(6), 43–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. PerroudH., KrummenauerR., TygelM. and LopesR. R. (2014) Parameter estimation from non‐hyperbolic reflection traveltimes for large aperture common midpoint gathers. Near Surface Geophysics, 12(5), 679–686.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Sacchi, M.D. (1998) A bootstrap procedure for high‐resolution velocity analysis. Geophysics, 63(5), 1716–1725.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Sarkar, D., Castagna, J.P. and Lamb, W.J. (2001) AVO and velocity analysis. Geophysics, 66(4), 1284–1293.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwarz, B. and Gajewski, D. (2017) A generalized view on normal moveout. Geophysics, 82(5), 335–349.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Shahsavani, H. (2011) A model‐based approach to the common‐diffraction‐surface stack. PhD thesis, Shahrood University of Technology, Iran.
  36. Shahsavani, H., Mann, J., Piruz, I. and Hubral, P. (2011) A model‐based approach to the common‐diffraction‐surface stack—theory and synthetic case study. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 20(3), 289–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Soleimani, M. (2009) Common diffraction surface stack as a new approach for solving the problem of conflicting dips. PhD thesis, Shahrood University of Technology.
  38. Soleimani, M., Piruz, I., Mann, J. and Hubral, P. (2009) Common‐reflection‐surface stack: Accounting for conflicting dip situations by considering all possible dips. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 18(3), 271–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Taner, M. T. and Koehler, F (1969) Velocity spectra‐digital computer derivation and applications of velocity functions. Geophysics, 34(6), 859–881.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Versteeg, R. (1994) The Marmousi experience: Velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set. The Leading Edge, 13(9), 927–936.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yilmaz, Ö. (2001) Seismic Data Analysis. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, P., Lu, W. and Zhang, Y. (2015) Velocity analysis with local event slopes related probability density function. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 123, 177–187.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12969
Loading
Velocity and event‐slope analysis using a model‐based common‐diffraction‐surface stack operator
Geophysical Prospecting 68, 2027 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12969
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12969
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12969
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Common‐diffraction‐surface stack; Common‐midpoint stack; Velocity analysis; Velocity spectrum

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error